[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60815-60819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29265]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPPTS-00281; FRL-6389-5]


Notice of Availability of FY 2000 Grant Funds for Technical 
Studies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of funds availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting pre-application grant proposals for 
technical studies to minimize lead hazards to occupants from home 
improvement projects, repainting projects, renovation projects and 
remodeling projects. EPA anticipates that approximately $700,000 will 
be available in Fiscal Year 2000, with individual grants/cooperative 
agreements awarded in the range of $60,000 to $100,000. Decisions on 
awarding of these grant funds will be made based on the evaluation of 
pre-application grant proposals. The primary purpose of this grant 
program is to fund technical studies to gain knowledge that will lead 
to the minimization of lead hazards to occupants from home improvement 
projects, repainting projects, renovation projects, and remodeling 
projects. EPA will consider awarding these grant funds for technical 
studies of the topics listed in Unit V. of this notice. EPA will also 
consider awarding these grant funds for technical studies that are not 
specifically mentioned in this notice, but are relevant to the 
minimization of lead hazards to occupants from home improvement 
projects, repainting projects, renovation projects, and remodeling 
projects. In such instances, the applicant should describe how the 
proposed technical study addresses the primary purpose of this notice.

DATES: All pre-application grant proposals must be post-marked by 
January 12, 2000, and must be received by January 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit pre-application proposals to: John Schwemberger, Mail 
Code 7404, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Room E-
813B, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schwemberger, Technical Branch, 
National Program Chemicals Division (7404), Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Rm. E-813B, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 
M St., SW., Washington, DC, 20460, (202) 260-7195, fax: (202) 260-0001, 
e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Notice Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, 
however, be of interest to those persons or organizations that wish to 
obtain funding from the Federal government to conduct or complete a 
technical study related to lead hazards from renovation and remodeling 
(R&R)1. Since other entities may also be interested, the 
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may 
be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed under ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the rest of this notice, the terms ``renovation and 
remodeling activities,'' ``renovation and remodeling,'' and ``R&R'' 
will be used to refer to home improvement projects, repainting 
projects, renovation projects, and remodeling projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Scope and Purpose of this Grant Program

A. Findings from EPA Research on Renovation and Remodeling Activities

    Over the past several years, EPA has engaged in a series of data 
collection efforts to investigate lead exposure associated with R&R 
activities. These studies, collectively referred to as the R&R Study, 
have focused on lead exposure associated with a wide variety of work 
activities typically conducted during R&R.
    Analysis of environmental data from the R&R Study indicates that 
substantial quantities of lead can be produced or released during R&R 
activities. The cleanup methods commonly employed by R&R workers (broom 
or ``shopvac'') are generally not effective in reducing the 
environmental lead to levels considered safe by EPA. In addition, 
examination of blood lead measurements of child occupants has 
demonstrated significant associations between some R&R activities and 
elevated blood lead levels.
    The results of the EPA R&R Study have been published in a series of 
reports available free of charge from the National Lead Information 
Center by calling 1-800-424-LEAD. Request the reports ``Lead Exposure 
Associated with Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Summary Report'' 
(EPA Report 747-R-96-005); ``Lead Exposure Associated with Renovation 
and Remodeling Activities: Environmental Field Sampling Study, Volume 
I: Technical Report'' (EPA Report 747-R-96-007); ``Lead Exposure 
Associated with Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Environmental 
Field Sampling Study, Volume II: Appendices'' (EPA Report 747-R-96-
008); and ``Lead Exposure Associated with Renovation and Remodeling 
Activities: Worker Characterization and Blood Lead Study'' (EPA Report 
747-R-96-006).

B. Recent NHANES Study

    Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination 
Survey (NHANES III) confirm the findings of earlier surveys that 
children who live in older housing are more vulnerable to lead 
poisoning, and have blood-lead levels that are elevated above the 
national average. Older residences tend to contain both lead-based 
paint and lead depositions from the fallout of vehicle exhaust that 
have accumulated over several decades. In addition, large or extensive 
R&R projects are often conducted in older houses. Since older houses 
contain more lead, conducting R&R activities in them can create an 
exposure hazard to the occupants.

C. Benefits of the Evaluation Program for Renovation and Remodeling

    Every year thousands of residential R&R activities are conducted 
across the United States in homes which contain lead-based paint. In 
many of these cases, exposure to hazardous levels of lead

[[Page 60816]]

may be a serious problem. The efforts supported by this grant will 
involve the investigation of approaches, methods, and technologies 
which can minimize the potential for lead hazards to occupants from R&R 
activities. This grant effort applies to R&R activities conducted by 
either home owners or home improvement contractors. Findings generated 
by grantees are intended to be published in scientific publications, 
and the data (other than confidential information such as names and 
addresses) made available to the scientific community at the time of 
publication.

III. EPA Quality Assurance Requirements

    EPA has quality assurance requirements that must be addressed once 
a grant has been awarded. After a grant is awarded, the grantee must 
submit a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) to EPA for approval 
before the generation of any new data or the evaluation of any existing 
data can occur.
    Quality assurance project plan requirements are stated in the 
document ``EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Plans'' (EPA QA/R5). 
Guidance for the development of QAPjPs can be found in the EPA document 
entitled, ``Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans'' (EPA QA/G-
5). QAPjPs for studies which generate new data must develop data 
quality objectives (DQOs) for the study. Guidance for developing DQOs 
can be found in the EPA publication, ``Guidance for the Data Quality 
Objective Process, EPA QA/G4'' (EPA/600/R-96/055). Grantees who use 
existing data must state the data acceptance criteria as a part of the 
required QAPjP. Guidance for performing data quality assessments (DQA) 
can be found in the EPA publication entitled, ``Guidance for Data 
Quality Assessment-Practical Methods for Data Analysis, EPA QA/G9'' 
(EPA/600/R-96-084). Copies of all of the quality assurance related 
documents noted above can be downloaded from the EPA Quality Assurance 
Division web site at http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa/qa/index.html.
    EPA intends to establish an assistance program for grantees to help 
them develop quality assurance plans for the awarded study. However, 
the responsibility for completing the quality assurance requirements 
remains with the applicants. If for some reason EPA cannot carry out 
the assistance program, the applicants will be required to meet the 
quality assurance requirements or risk losing funding.

IV. Human Subjects Approval and Data Confidentiality

    Research supported by EPA that uses human subjects must comply with 
40 CFR part 26, Protection of Human Subjects (referred to as ``the 
Common Rule''). If there are child research subjects, the research must 
also comply with 45 CFR part 46, subpart D.
    If a study involves humans, including just asking them questions, 
human subjects approval by EPA may be required before the study can be 
funded. If the study is exempt from human subjects approval (40 CFR 
26.101(b) lists the exemptions), the exempt finding must be confirmed 
by EPA. One important exemption is for studies which involve the 
analysis of existing data sets, documents, or specimens where either 
these data sets, documents, or specimens are publicly available or 
recorded in such a manner that the subjects cannot be identified.
    For non-exempt studies, the approval process typically involves: 
(1) Documenting that the applicant holds a multiple project assurance 
(MPA) which is approved and on file with the Department of Health and 
Human Services (DHHS) (If the applicant does not hold an DHHS MPA, EPA 
may issue a single project assurance (SPA) provided the applicant meets 
the requirements of the Common Rule.); (2) documenting approval from 
the applicant's Institutional Review Board; (3) submitting a copy of 
the study proposal and protocols for data collection; and (4) 
submitting a copy of the consent form and a description of procedures 
for obtaining informed consent.
    Formal human subjects approval or a finding of an exemption from 
human subjects approval will be made by EPA's Review Official as part 
of the formal grant application process for those applicants who are 
selected for funding. For purposes of the pre-application process, 
applicants should be sure to address the mandatory requirements 
described in Unit VIII. regarding human subjects approval, data 
confidentiality, and study restrictions.

V. Activities

    This NOFA covers whose goal is minimizing lead hazards to occupants 
from R&R activities. Several studies on R&R will be funded up to the 
amount of funding available, and the exact number of studies will 
depend upon the mix of dollar values of the most highly rated 
proposals.
    The list below is only provided to describe examples of possible 
topics for study in this area, and the ordering below should not be 
construed as in any particular order. Other ideas related to R&R are 
openly encouraged. The best proposals will be selected regardless of 
category. More than one organization might possibly be funded in the 
same topic area.
    Examples of possible topics for a study are as follows:
    1. Efficacy of cleaning techniques: For example, an evaluation of 
vacuuming technology to reduce dust lead loading on carpeted and/or 
smooth surfaces after R&R. This could include but not be limited to a 
comparison of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums, shop 
vacuums, other special purpose vacuums or vacuum bags, and regular 
vacuums. Also of interest are effective cleaning techniques for 
cleaning lead-contaminated carpets and other irregular surfaces.
    2. Portable field testing: This could include an evaluation of 
portable field testing units to analyze dust, paint, and/or soil before 
or after R&R. Dust sampling and analysis could be useful in verifying 
that dust cleanup has been properly done after R&R, paint sampling and 
analysis could be useful for determining whether paint contains lead 
and would need special precautions to prevent lead contamination due to 
R&R, and soil sampling and analysis could determine whether lead 
contamination was generated from external scraping, for example. 
Examples could include but are not limited to the following: portable 
XRF, for dust, soil or paint analysis, or alternative field testing 
technologies, such as colorimetric devices, anodic stripping voltametry 
or laser technology.
    3. Field kit: including testing instructions and a mailer to send 
samples to a laboratory. A major cost in sampling and analysis before 
undertaking R&R activities is the cost of sending a professional to the 
home. If a reliable program could be developed for a homeowner to take 
samples and mail them to an EPA-recognized laboratory, this could 
greatly reduce testing costs and potentially result in much greater 
testing to prevent lead poisoning due to R&R activities.
    4. Build upon previously conducted studies by EPA or other 
organizations to further advance the state of knowledge of the control 
of lead hazards created by R&R activities.
    5. Clearance testing after R&R: examine the performance of various 
methods on different surfaces for clearance after R&R.
    6. Studying the effects of R&R on outdoor dust lead levels.
    7. Studying the safe use of heat guns for paint removal.

[[Page 60817]]

VI. Grant Term

    The applicant's proposed project period should start on October 1, 
2000, and may last for up to 2 years. Successful applicants may be 
granted time extensions of 6 months beyond the 2-year period, but those 
decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, if and when they become 
necessary. Awards of additional funds beyond the initial funding award 
are very unlikely.

VII. Eligibility

    Eligible recipients include, but are not limited to, non-profit 
organizations, institutions of higher learning, state and local 
associations, states, federally-recognized Indian Tribes and tribal 
organizations, for-profit organizations, trade and professional 
associations, labor unions and joint labor/management trust funds. 
However, as a result of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, EPA (and 
other Federal agencies) may not award grants to non-profit, section 
501(c)(4) organizations that engage in lobbying activities. This 
restriction applies to any lobbying activities of a section 501(c)(4) 
organization without distinguishing between lobbying funded by Federal 
money and lobbying funded by other sources.
    In addition, the following conditions apply:
    1. There are no requirements for matching funding under this grant 
program.
    2. No applicant can receive two grants from this NOFA for the same 
project at one time. Applicants may submit more than one application so 
long as the applications are for separate and distinct projects.
    3. If applicants will use funding from other sources (private or 
public) in carrying-out their proposed projects, the applicants must 
disclose those sources of funding and any restrictions due to funding 
from other sources in the pre-application. Evidence of other funding, 
if applicable, is required in the pre-application.
    4. The grants under this program will be awarded as cooperative 
agreements to allow for the substantial involvement anticipated between 
EPA and the recipients during the post-award period for these projects.

VIII. Criteria For Selection

Mandatory Requirements and Evaluation Factors
    Pre-application proposals will be rated based on the following 
mandatory requirements and evaluation factors. There are three 
mandatory requirements. The maximum points for each evaluation factor 
are provided below. The maximum number of points from all evaluation 
factors is 100. Applicants will be required to submit a Study Plan with 
an Appendix to be considered. The Study Plan will be divided into 
Sections A through J, as indicated in Unit IX. If more than 10 pages 
are submitted for either the Study Plan or the Appendix, only the first 
10 pages of each will be rated.
Mandatory Requirements
    1. If the study will include human subjects, the applicant must 
demonstrate that the study will be done in compliance with 40 CFR part 
26, that the study will also be done in compliance with 45 CFR part 46, 
subpart D if there are child research subjects, and that the applicant 
will be able to complete EPA human subjects approval or have an exempt 
finding confirmed by EPA.
    2. The applicant must demonstrate the study will maintain the 
confidentiality of personal information, such as preventing linkage 
between names/addresses and data.
    3. Restrictions on the study and on the release of non-confidential 
data must be judged reasonable and appropriate for a study funded by 
EPA.
    The applicant's response to Section E of the Study Plan will be 
used to rate the applicant on these mandatory requirements.
Evaluation Factors
    1. Does the proposed study address the goals of this NOFA and 
provide needed and important information to the scientific community? 
(25 points)
    The applicant's response to Sections A, B, C, and H of the Study 
Plan will be used to rate the applicant on this factor.
    2. Is the study sound from scientific and practical perspectives? 
(35 points)
    The applicant's response to Sections D, F, and G of the Study Plan 
will be used to rate the applicant on this factor.
    3. Does the applicant have the resources and organization to carry 
out and complete the study as proposed? (20 points)
    The applicant's response to Section I of the Study Plan and to the 
Appendix will be used to rate the applicant on this factor.
    4. Are the time line and budget realistic and developed 
sufficiently? (20 points)
    The applicant's response to Section J of the Study Plan will be 
used to rate the applicant on this factor.
    If two or more pre-applications receive the same score, and it is 
necessary to break ties, the following procedure will be used 
successively as necessary to resolve tie scores:
    (1) Pre-application with highest score in factor 1.
    (2) Pre-application with the highest score in factor 2.
    (3) Pre-application with the highest score in factor 3.
    (4) Pre-application with the highest score in factor 4.

IX. Pre-Application Procedure

A. Overall Requirements for Submission

    Applicants must submit a proposal for the pre-application 
procedure. The Agency will use applicants' submissions to select 
projects to be funded under this grant program. After EPA conducts a 
review of all submitted pre-applications, successful applicants will be 
contacted and requested to submit other documents (such as the 
``Application for Federal Assistance'' form (Standard Form 424 or 
SF424), and the ``Budget Information: Non-Construction Programs'' form 
(SF424A)), human subjects approval materials where applicable, and 
other required forms to complete the application process. However, for 
the purposes of the pre-application process, applicants must submit 
only what is described below.
    Applicants must submit one original and two copies of the pre-
application (double-sided copies are encouraged). Pre-applications must 
be reproducible (for example, stapled in the upper left- hand corner, 
on white paper, and with page numbers). The pre-application consists of 
the following two parts.
    1. Study Plan. A study plan describes the applicant's proposed 
project. A Table of Contents with page numbers should be included. 
Study plans must be no more than 10 pages total. One page is one side 
of a single-spaced typed page. The pages must be letter size (8\1/2\'' 
x 11''), with normal type size (10 or 12 cpi) and must have margins 
that are at least 1 inch. The study plan must respond to the format 
described below in Section B of this unit.
    2. Appendix. The only items that EPA will accept in the Appendix 
are resumes of key personnel and the title, description, and reference 
name with phone number for work on previous or current grants or 
contracts with the Federal government within the last 5 years. The 
appendix must be no more than 10 pages total. One page is one side of a 
single-spaced typed page. The pages must be letter size (8\1/2\'' x 
11''), with normal type size (10 or 12 cpi) and must have margins that 
are at least 1 inch.

B. Format for the Study Plan

    Applicants must submit a Study Plan in the following format, with, 
as stated

[[Page 60818]]

above, a maximum of 10 pages in total for the Study Plan:
    A. Title, synopsis, and table of contents. Pre-applications should 
include a title, a synopsis of the proposal, and a table of contents. 
The title and the synopsis should accurately and concisely describe the 
proposed study to the point that a person not familiar with the study 
could describe it to someone else who is not familiar with the study.
    B. Need for study and relationship of study to other activities. 
The applicant should explain why the proposed study should be done and 
how it will improve the understanding of ways to minimize lead exposure 
to occupants from R&R activities. In addition, the applicant should 
indicate why the proposed study is likely to produce useful 
information. Finally, the relationship, if any, between the proposed 
study and the applicant's ongoing or previous data collection/research 
activities should be described.
    C. Study objectives. The study objectives should be stated clearly. 
Examples of study objectives would be to compare two methods, to 
compare a method to a clearance standard, to obtain information on the 
characteristics of a method, or to take a survey of certain practices 
such as cleanup methods. Any variables used in the description of the 
study objectives should be clearly defined.
    D. Study design and data specifics. The study design describes how 
the study will be executed, what data will be collected, and what 
characteristics the data will have. This element covers the design or 
plan for the proposal. The study design is critical to the success of 
any project since it addresses how well the proposal will answer the 
question being examined. The proposal should clearly describe:
     How the study design will achieve the objectives of the 
study.
     ``Real-world'' applicability of the design. For example, 
if variability is carefully controlled, but the conditions are so 
strained as to make the applicability of the results for further use 
less straightforward to generalize to other settings, the proposal will 
receive a lower score than if the design is more generalizable.
     The feasibility and practicality of the project. For 
example, can all groups involved follow the plan?
     Ways to control unwanted effects and variability, such as 
seasonal variation in blood-lead levels.
     Sample size/power determinations.
     How the samples were/will be selected? Was a randomized 
sampling plan followed?
     The process used to obtain the data. For example, what 
type of chemical analysis was used? Or, if a survey, what questions 
were or will be asked?
     The presence of a control group where applicable.
    E. Human subjects approval, data confidentiality, and study 
restrictions. If the study will include human subjects, the applicant 
must demonstrate that the study will be done in compliance with 40 CFR 
part 26, that the study will also comply with 45 CFR part 46, subpart D 
if there are child research subjects, and that the applicant will be 
able to complete EPA human subjects approval or have an exempt finding 
confirmed by EPA. In addition, the applicant must describe plans to 
maintain the confidentiality of personal information.
    The applicant must also describe any restrictions on the study and 
associated data. This includes, for example, restrictions due to other 
sources of funding, rules of the applicant's institution, or guarantees 
made to cooperating human subjects.
    F. Quality assurance. In order to have confidence in the product of 
a study, the quality of the data sets in support of the study should be 
determined and demonstrated to be adequate. This demonstration of data 
quality assurance applies to both newly generated data and existing 
data sets which are to be used as a part of the study. Some of the 
areas of data quality assurance which need to be taken under 
consideration include evaluations of data bias, precision, and 
representativeness.
    Pre-applications should include a description of the process to be 
used to evaluate the quality of newly generated data and/or existing 
data. This description should identify key areas of data quality 
assurance which will be taken under consideration in order to have 
confidence in the final study product.
    G. Statistical analysis plan. The statistical analysis plan should 
include the translation of the study objectives to appropriate 
statistical terms, such as a test of hypotheses or estimation of 
confidence limits around a point estimate. The statistical analysis 
plan should also mention the statistical approach used to evaluate the 
data. If a hypothesis is to be evaluated, the alternative hypothesis, 
the type I error and the statistical tests that will be used should be 
described. In the case of descriptive statistics, the procedure for 
calculating an appropriate confidence interval, with the level of 
confidence, for the point estimates should be described. If a model, 
such as a regression model, is to be developed, the description of the 
model and the assumptions underlying the model should be stated.
    The analysis plan should also include the statistical software that 
will be used. Other items to consider are: graphical analyses to be 
carried out; data transformations and the reason for these 
transformations; consideration of confounding variables; and data 
assumptions, such as normality and independence.
    H. Products and dissemination. Products from grantees should 
include articles on study findings in scientifically peer reviewed 
publications. Pre-applications need to state what products will be 
produced, and what means of product information dissemination will be 
used in order to make study findings and study data available to the 
scientific community.
    I. Organizational resources. The pre-application must include a 
description of the applicant's organizational resources. The applicant 
should demonstrate that these resources are sufficient to implement the 
proposed activity in a timely manner and within budget while meeting 
the proposed study objectives. The applicant should document the 
knowledge and experience of the project director and staff, including 
the day-to-day program manager(s), staff members, consultants, and 
contractors. In particular, the experience of key staff in relevant 
areas such as personnel management, administrative support, data 
management and statistical analysis, chemical analysis, quality 
assurance, and report writing should be documented. Resumes of key 
personnel should be included in the Appendix.
    If the applicant has received other grants or contracts from the 
Federal government in the last 5 years, the applicant must furnish a 
title and description of the previous work, and the name and phone 
number of a Federal government employee who is familiar with the 
applicant's performance on that grant or contract. This information 
should be included in the Appendix.
    J. Time line, financial plan, and sources of other funding. Pre-
applications should include a time line or schedule for completing the 
proposed study, a financial plan which estimates all costs associated 
with the proposed study on a yearly basis with totals for the entire 
study, and identification of other sources of funding for the proposed 
study. The financial plan should include the following categories of 
costs: personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, 
contractual, construction, other, total direct charges (sum of 
personnel, fringe benefits,

[[Page 60819]]

travel, equipment, supplies, contractual, construction and other), 
indirect charges and total (sum of total direct charges and indirect 
charges.) A part of the study schedule should include a provision for 
verbal and written updates to EPA.
    Sources of other funding, either pending or already established, 
must be identified. Information sufficient to verify sources of any 
other funding already established must be included in this section.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Lead.

    Dated: November 3, 1999.

William H. Sanders III,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 99-29265 Filed 11-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F